Mr Cameron, It’s You Who Needs Education About Cannabis!

Al Jazeera: This was incidentally, the second most popular question because viewers would submit questions and then members of the public would vote.

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them? Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?

Cameron: Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems. But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.

Al Jazeera: What about the argument that it could be used as medicinal properties? That was another question we actually had, a person saying it’s got proven medicinal properties. If used properly and regulated properly it could actually be quite helpful.

Cameron: That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that. But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.

Dear Mr Cameron,

I am writing about your answer to the question about marijuana during the recent Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview.

I am the recently elected leader of the LCA. I represent the interests of at least two million regular users of cannabis and perhaps as many as 10 million occasional users in Britain. This is a huge proportion of the population and on their behalf I am requesting a meeting with you.

We were dismayed, shocked even, at your answer to the question. With respect, clearly it is you who are in great need of education about cannabis. The information you gave was inaccurate and false. While we must all respect different opinions, your answer was factually wrong and you must correct it.

Cannabis is not “incredibly damaging”, nor “very, very toxic”. It is a myth that there is anything significantly different about the cannabis on sale today and the idea that it causes “in many cases, huge mental health problems” has been comprehensively disproved many times over by scientists all over the world.

I can provide you with scientific information which proves that these ideas are false. Recently we have been pursuing various newspapers through the Press Complaints Commission for publishing the same inaccuracies. I am seriously alarmed when I see the prime minster of my country distributing such untruths.

Two key facts:

The Therapeutic Ratio of cannabis (ED50:LD50) is 1:40000 (Alcohol = 1:10, Paracetamol = 1:30). Even potatoes are more toxic than cannabis.

Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol reviewed all published research on cannabis and psychosis in 2009 and concluded that 96% of people have no risk whatsoever and in the remaining 4% the risk is “statistically tiny”.

Your suggestion that legalising drugs increases use is also not supported by the evidence. In both Holland and Portugal where cannabis use is not prosecuted, consumption is much lower than in Britain.

Finally, on medicinal use it is simply not true that the scientific and medical authorities are free to make independent determinations. The Home Office stamps on any medicinal cannabis use even when prescribed by a doctor. People from other European countries can bring medicinal cannabis to Britain and use it legally under the Schengen agreement but you can’t if you’re British. Here, sick and disabled people are being prosecuted every day for use of a medicine which is scientifically and medically proven. Surely you cannot be unaware of this? It is a cruel and evil policy which shames our nation.

So please, Mr Cameron, will you meet with me in order that I may show you the evidence and the facts about cannabis? Remember, this was the second most popular question you were asked on Friday and I represent the interests of millions of British citizens. Please make time for me in your diary.

56 Responses

the reason he is uneducated is because he doesn’t care for the subject, if he did, he would meet you or at least do some research and make a public correction…..but its not going to happen………because he doesn’t care for it. as long as we are rules by governments the people will not decide what they eat, what they take, or how they live.

you have to think as well, if he is unwilling to be educated on a subject he doesn’t care for, how many other important issues are being snubbed just because Cameron is too damn arrogant to consider the views of the large part of the electorate he doesn’t agree with?

I would love for this meeting to take place, for somebody of power to finally lend an ear and allow themselves to be schooled on the facts, however I fear, as I am sure many others do, that just as all previously letters to MPs have seemed to fall on deaf ears, this will go no further than the stock response. It is a shame, but perhaps with repeated bombardment of facts, eventually we will get through.

“The system maintains law and order throughout the land
On which our futures already planned
To serve the leaders quest for power
To remember our position, to respect that shower
Who divide the masses the rich v the poor
The left and the right, who create civil war
This is forced upon us from birth until death
We’ve heard of freedom, but it just don’t exist”

Mr Camerons answer to that question sent shivers down my spine as I feel it is a crying shame and a travesty that he is so ignorant regarding the huge benefits of cannabis but it is a crime that anyone in power feels so omnipotent that he dare condemn a substance he obviously knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject and hasn’t paid any notice what so ever to the ACMD previous and current reports on cannabis which state it is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. He will not meet with you Peter, he knows he is clueless in this area and he is scared to go there, he is intent on clinging onto power for as long as possible and can only do so if he avoids such hot potato topics such as drugs, remember, he cares not about our concerns, unless we register ourselves as a corporate entity… ie Public Corp, then he will perhaps take notice..

His reply demonstrated a level of ignorance I find really quite amazing. He could have made a case against law reform without actually saying things that simply are not true – and are so easy to prove are untrue.

I’m gobsmacked, utterly gobsmacked.

One small niggle in an otherwise well crafted missive though Peter, I’m not sure you can really claim to represent anyone’s interests. As things stand of course you are the head of a still small campaign, be careful not to over-egg your pudding. I hope you can build the LCA to be what it should be, but it isn’t there yet.

Well I am claiming it Derek! We’re not going to get anywhere by being shy and I think I’ve got at least as much right to claim I represent British cannabis as anyone else. That is what I am seeking to do.

Actually Peter I hope you’re seeking to represent the case for cannabis law reform which goes way beyond the interests of just the millions of cannabis users! There are many of us who don’t use cannabis affected by the anarchy, violence and police repression created by prohibition after all, you need to represent that argument as well.

It is not that wide campaign you seek to represent, rather than a narrowly defined group of people?

The important point is surely that to be able to claim to represent anyone (as opposed to a thing like a campaign) you require some form of mandate from the people you are claiming to represent. You represent the LCA and whatever its stated aims are or will be once you’ve thrashed out the changes, I don’t really see how you could ever claim to represent more than that.

I’m hopeful that under your leadership the LCA will grow to be a major force for change – I certainly like what I’m hearing of your plans.

As I say this is only a niggling point in an otherwise very well written post, but claiming to represent people with no mandate is guaranteed to get their backs up.

But I do emphasis that other than this one small point this post is exactly the sort of reasoned fact based approach I’ve been longing to see for the past 15 or more years I’ve been involved with the cannabis law reform campaign. Please don’t let it get sidetracked by silly issues like this and it will if you over-egg the position you’re in.

In the world according to jimbob, However, You look at it another way, Mr C has just given the pro lobby a blinding opportunity to agree with him and turn his own words against him. Some might say that some crops from shady types may or may not be flushed properly from their hydroponic chemical boost fest, hence making it tainted in some way.

So the need for extra control and regulation needs to be in place because of this.

I have been a cannabis user for more than 35 years and, over this period, have had my hopes raised, then dashed, several times.

It was the Legalise Cannabis Campaign in those days, but I didn’t know much about them.
It was only after getting a PC ten years ago (I was a late starter) that I became active; sometimes in conjunction with the LCA through their forum, but mostly on my own.

I didn’t join, due to concern about my job, working with young people, but the LCA didn’t seem to have a lot of direction anyway. Yes, a lot of enthusiastic people making a lot of noise, and Alun being invited onto TV every now and again, but not really getting anywhere.

It seems to me, Peter, that you have come out of nowhere – I found your blog even before I knew you were a cannabis activist – but you seem to know where you’re going, and are taking quite a few people with you.

Now I feel more positive about getting somewhere than I have ever done.
As one of those 2m+, I feel strongly that you are representing my interests

Derek, you should have faith and give Peter as much support as you can – surely you can see that he’s got what it takes?

@ pjmcneill – I hope I made it clear I do support Peter in what he is trying to do – read my blog if you want more proof (click my name above)

But I’ve been around this game a long time now and I know what causes bad feeling and it’s usually very easy to avoid. Claiming to represent people is one way to cause a lot of feathers to fly which only serves to drown out the points we all want to see made.

Great post, I completely agree with your opinion on this subject. I’m only 18 and I am disgusted at the Cannabis laws in this country. It amazes me that in this age of instant information, Cannabis is dismissed as being “toxic” and “addictive”. What will it take for Cannabis to be categorised separately from the word “drugs”? It’s completely disheartening that alcohol and tobacco are legal when they a PROVEN time and time again to be devastating to your health. I applaud you for your effort, and remember this, they can’t hide the truth forever.

i hope his ill informed responce gets all the publisity it deseves , maybe now the 10’clock show will call you up peter for the historic first live public debate on cannabis prohibition, im sure they will be getting a rush from supporter on face book now ! lol lets all get this rolling and we will smoke it

“I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.” Legalise and regulate then sillyhead.

> I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.

The claims of toxicity and of causing mental illness are simply wrong; Cannabis is very, very non toxic with almost no overdose potential and there is no evidence that it causes mental illness in healthy people.

The issue with some modern strains of cannabis is claimed to be with the ratio of THC to CBD – the two major components of cannabis. It is claimed that some strains sold on the street have very little CBD and might therefore be associated with an increased risk of exacerbating an existing mental illness, or even perhaps of bringing about a psychotic state which might be an early indication of an emerging illness although this is very contentious and is not a proven fact. Indeed, a large study by scientists at Keele university[1] failed to find any increase in the rates of serious mental illness over the past 40 or so years, despite the massive increase in cannabis use during that period.

It should be noted in addition that if – and I do say “if” – cannabis has become “incredibly damaging” – this change has actually occurred under the regime of prohibition and has been caused by that regime and the distorted economics of the supply side it has created.

There is also no population evidence to support the claim that cannabis causes cancer [2], and indeed some interesting evidence to suggest that the compound within cannabis may actually fight cancer [3].

However, under prohibition we do know that street cannabis is often contaminated, either with added substances or with pesticides. How does contamination like this help to reduce the potential dangers? Under prohibition there is no way to know either the strength or the strain of cannabis being used – again, how does this help to reduce the potential harms?

You went on to say

> But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now.

Again, you make a claim with at best no evidence base and indeed much to say it is simply wrong. Decriminalisation in Portugal and Holland has not increased use, indeed use there is lower than here or in the home of prohibition the USA. In any case, because prohibition makes sampling the user group in any scientifically valid way impossible, I would be interested to know how you can even begin to claim that prohibition leads to the lowest levels of use?

But of course a simplistic measure such as the rates of use is largely meaningless, what matters rather more is the nature of that use. As an example 100 adults drinking beer in a pub is far less damaging than 10 kids swigging vodka from a bottle in a derelict building. Prohibition would prevent the 100 adults drinking beer in the pub, thus greatly reducing the level of alcohol use, but would do nothing to prevent the kids swigging vodka in the derelict building – except that under prohibition the kids would now be swigging moonshine.

Prohibition, I’m afraid, is not drug control because unless you control the trade in something you cannot claim that substance is controlled.

> So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.

You are clearly very badly informed.

Regarding medicinal cannabis you said:

That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

Actually, no. It is the policy of your government that there is no medical value in herbal cannabis and thus you are unwilling to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in order to allow its use. That is your policy, not scientific opinion.

I would like to ask that you correct these misleading and factually wrong claims as a matter of urgency. It is totally unacceptable for a person in your position to misrepresent the actual real world situation in such an ill-informed way.

It Is shocking, that you would reply with such little thought & knowledge.

Quote : education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question.

So what Education programme would that be ? , Is there an education programme on Cannabis ? I was never educated about Cannabis In the right way & I left only a year ago , Education about Cannabis Is Vital stop avoiding It with The word DRUG ! I was educated about drugs & It worked ;] I was taught the effects of each Illegal substance , & I chose which 1’s I wanted to experience…

Education In the words of David Cameron : we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work.
A programme that has to work for who, You ?

But I don’t really accept the rest of the question he says!

The rest of the questions I believe was : Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them ?

You don’t except Or you don’t UNDERSTAND ! – why do you make money from damaging substances such as tobacco & alcohol ?

the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic – IS SO TRUE ! you must of heard about the contamination with glass In Cannabis In your country… ! Or Is that just an uneducated Answer to Cannabis In general ?

@ Peter Reynolds.

I really appreciate what your doing for the Interests of millions, concerned & devastated about what the Illegality of Cannabis Is doing , It Is effecting a lot of young people that the way It Is dealt with Is so wrong !

I will be sending a personal letter to David Cameron & My Local MP along with the letter you have sent & I hope everyone sees this & the many millions of Cannabis users send a letter them selves.

being a biomedical researcher, i can say:
you’re talking crap, quite frankly.
cannabis ‘can’ be incredibly damaging. not ‘is’, not ‘not’, ‘can be’. you are criticising DC on the precise word of his answer, check your own.
nothing different about cannabis today?! people who grow are far smarter about cultivating THC these days. agreed?
i put it to you, that people are less educated about curing. plenty of studies show that high THC, low metabolites of THC cause basically what i’d call a ‘whitey’ almost strait away. high metabolites, low THC causes what i’d call ‘being high’, giggling and such, but not much feeling of heaviness, loss of memory, etc… not to mention the fact that some of the metabolites are what give cannabis its lovely aromas and tastes.
this is the main point for me. legalise it, and you make sure it’s grown and cured properly, with no silica sand or opium (i had opium on some bud once, dont think it was supposed to be on there, but i tested it and it came up positive).
mental health is affected from a single molecule of any phytocanabinoid or xenocanabinoid. that doesnt mean you are a gibbering wreck, it simply means you have had a chemical alteration to your brain that will likely never go. human canabinoids are the most effective canabinoids at doing their job, flood your brain with others, you start to lessen connectivity between sections of the brain, you form habbits, but almost every other brain function is slowed. permenantly.
psychosis is demonstrated in 4% in study? then i say it’s 4% of tested under clinical trial.
believe me, i could set up a trail and make conclusive proof that masturbating makes your brain fall out. if i want a result i can make it happen, if i dont, my results will literally never be seen by anyone but me.

i’m one of the few who did have serious mental health problems, i dont think the cannabis caused them. i know it worsened them. i will never fully recover, but i’v done a trial on recovery, and made huge progress.
i honestly want answers, so i will not mess with results. simply put, i have seen people go from freakishly smart, to fearful of leaving their houses, to being fairly successful academics. trouble being, it involves medication that could damage the nervous system seriously and permenantly, but i’v seen no evidence of the bad side effects actually manifest.

Dear Mr Peter Reynolds
My suggestion is that you use the same method that your prime minister used to spread the lies, to spread the truth. Politicians hate bad publicity and one of the most democratically available ways to get the truth around is through YouTube. If his lies are in YouTube then why not make another video that shows his lies and put it in the same place. If you use the same keywords then every time someone sees one video they will see the other being offered. The wording could be “The lies behind Mr David Cameron’s interview to Al Jazeera”. Every time someone goes for the interview they will be obliged to see the truth on the list beside the YouTube video. Politicians and corporations have people that keep an eye out for manifestations that happen on the Internet. Be sure that as soon as you put the video out not only Al Jazeera will want to know what is happening and why their interview is being called a lie, but Mr Cameron would also be rather upset to see that his interview is being considered untrue and is publically being called a lie too. I think that it will be more efficient this way since letters to be successful have to be in the thousands and I don’t know if there are sufficient people who could send these letters to make any impression besides that fact that who, besides the politician, is sees the amount of letters that are being recieved (on YouTube one can see the amount of people who see the video and that is a result that even the prime minister cannot deny. Besides the fact that people from other countries cannot help sending letters to British politicians (but they can see the video and contribute to the nunber of viewers (Mr Cameron will not know the difference between british or foreign viewers (to our advantage).
The Interview could have some parts of the original interview with insertions of your own showing the errors. Be sure that it will be worth the trouble and be sure it will hurt Mr Cameron much more than letters he can throw away.
With gratitude for your efforts to spread the truth.
All the best.

I like the way your suggesting the edit however, on this occasion only, I would suggest that the scientific evidence presented to validate the inaccuracy of any politically motivated statement be presented by the likes of a professor who has not been frightened by history into not telling the truth and can validate.

It would be interesting to see if Seth could present it maybe? He has the disarming manner of intelligent youth with the wisdom of integrity unsoiled by the spoils of life.

Equally, if Peter could do such a thing employing, calm, truthful demeanor and resisting the rightful urge to shout ‘Lier’ this would also be the ticket.

I would suggest that rather than make a deal about Cameron ‘lying’ instead, focus on the truth of the matter and, that change MUST come about for the better of society here in our home, the UK.

Once the mass middle classes accept that the truth is different to our conditioning (they do already know this but, won’t admit it to themselves I suspect)then the whole political environment will be better placed to move without fear of political suicide.

I also seem to remember that David Cameron was very lucky not to have been charged with dealing or possessing cannabis himself while at university. It was only because a senior teacher did not want to ruin his prospects that he was not, two other men were not so lucky. You would think having nearly had his political career ruined before it even began by an unfair drugs charge might have made him a bit more open minded about relaxing the laws surrounding cannabis.
But no as long as he’s alright he’s happy to see lots of otherwise law abiding citizens lives and careers ruined by drug charges, and spread propaganda about weed sending people mad. Yes there is evidence that if you have an underlying predisposition to mental illness it can be triggered by strong cannabis, but education about this issue, how strong the different strains are, and laws requiring the strains to be clearly labeled with their strength would help to prevent this kind of thing.
All this is beside the point when we see every week people are getting shamefully drunk and having to be arrested for their own and the publics protection, but then are released without charge the next day. While someone who smokes a joint in the privacy of their own home faces a charge that makes them unemployable or could even result in a prison sentence.
The government could make millions in tax if they legalized the drug, they already do from selling the paraphernalia and equipment involved in growing and consuming it, I don’t know what the hold up is. It looks like the USA are about to start doing it on a state by state basis, then we will you watch. They made it illegal when the yanks told them to, and they’ll legalize it again too when the yanks say it’s OK.

Dear Peter
Could you please forward the following to Professor Nutt, the old government drugs adviser please as he might find this interesting. Or, email me with his email address.
Thank you and best regards
Pier

Posted on February 13, 2011 at 18:34

Dear Peter Reynolds
I use herbal pot, not by smoking it but by eating it and I have come to the conclusion that it is the tobacco that causes all the bad press about pot, mental illness etc. Think about it, it is the addictive nicotine in the smoked tobacco that makes you smoke more and hold it down so that the carcinogens from the tobacco enter deep into the lungs
causing all sorts of medical problems.
Now, back to me eating it. It takes longer to come on, an hour to an hour and a half, but it lasts longer, not like the short tobacco THC hit.
I feel and state that the brain has cannabis receptors to receive THC and other cannabinoids by eating only, because God included the gene in Gods
Original Design. I state that it is genetically programmed into the human genome to use THC and other cannabinoids.
I also state that professional geneticists will confirm that I state it as it is!
Now Peter, when the geneticists confirm that it is in mankinds genetic makeup to use THC by eating ONLY, governments the world over will have to legalise the God-Given plant.
Think about it, smoking and tobacco only started in the European world when it was brought back from the Americas.
Those Native American people knew damn well that tobacco was addictive, they also knew damn well that it would kill the smoker slowly over a period of decades. Forget the ‘runs’, tobacco was Montezumas true revenge for the white man changing their lands and way of life forever.
I do not smoke or drink and I exercise regularly and eat healthily, and the synergistic effect of the THC and other cannabinoids make me absolutely SHINE.
I am all for eating pot BUT I AM ANTI SMOKING POT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO INGEST THC AND OTHER CANNABINOIDS.
Yours sincerely
Pierre Iwan Goj

I personally believe that any Politician must only be accepted as Prime Minister if they honour their words spoken in their election campaign or else it’s just fraud!!

I cannot sell a product to get rid of stains if it doesn’t get rid of stains! it’s called false advertising and I’d expect to feel the full weight of the law for falsely claiming my product could do something it doesn’t, especially if my customers were forced to use said product for a minimum of 4 years as is the case with David Cameron. I would be locked up or fined massively for making such false claims, so why can politicians get away with it?

Even worse is the fact he blagged his way into power by merging his votes obtained by false advertising with those of Nick Cleg’s votes , also secured via false pledges!!

So, now we are victims of 2 travelling salesmen selling their blended Eton stain remover which doesn’t remove any stains but instead causes more stains in the form of lies and misinformation.. In my opinion these men should be locked up for fraud, corruption, corporate protectionism.

If his statement about cannabis was based on pure ignorance then he isn’t qualified for the job in hand or his statement was a divisive attempt to maintain the protective cloak of lies and racist propaganda started by Anslinger to protect his corporate Dupont buddies.

We should all call or write our representatives and pose this question upon them: Would you be willing to swear under oath and under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury that we the people do not have a lawful,inalienable birth right to all things our creator gave us,including but not limited to cannabis,hemp and marijuana?